The monumental significance of the American Revolution is articulated in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration teaches that to merit obedience, the laws enacted by any State must be consistent with the “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” This “Higher Law” doctrine provides grounds not only for civil disobedience, but even for violent revolution if the acts of the State evince a design toward tyranny. Not the State but God is the ultimate source of authority.

Such is the profundity of the Declaration that it was incorporated in most of the thirteen original state constitutions. Abraham Lincoln regarded the Declaration as the credo of the American people and the political philosophy of the American Constitution. Thus understood, the Constitution is based on certain immutable ethical and political principles. Most fundamental is the primacy of the individual, from which follows the principle of limited government. Limited government requires separation of legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This produces institutional checks and balances to prevent majority as well as minority tyranny. The Constitution thus prescribes institutional means to safeguard the individual’s rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

It may shock you to learn—but some scholars believe I am the first political scientist to reveal—that the seed of the anti-American revolution was planted by Woodrow Wilson. Influenced by German historical relativism, Wilson rejected the natural rights doctrine of the Declaration of Independence. Instead of immutable “laws of nature” he posited evolutionary laws of history. He originated the idea that the Constitution must evolve with the changing circumstances of society. The Supreme Court must therefore interpret the Constitution not according to the intentions of its Framers, but according to the progressive opinions of the day—the opinions of the “enlightened” members of society ensconced in academia.

Wilson was a political scientist who admired England’s unitary system of cabinet government, where the party of the prime minister also controls the legislature. He admired the Prussian system of public administration which, by endowing government with professionalism, insulated it from partisan politics. Wilson may be deemed America’s first cosmopolitan president.

Enter Barack Obama, a self-declared cosmopolitan now spearheading an anti-American revolution. The Declaration and the Constitution are being relegated to the dust heap of history. This revolution employs institutional and cultural techniques to stifle individual freedom and maximize the power of the State.

The most cancerous institutional technique involves enormous expansion of the bureaucracy, invading the private domain. Most insidious, Obama’s health-care, which may include euthanasia, empowers the State to ration medical treatment according to a person’s age and illness, hence to determine whether you live or die. Farewell to the individual’s inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

To ram through his far-left agenda, Obama’s Democratic cohorts in the House have curtailed the three-day posting period preceding the vote on any bill, thus preventing the public from knowing what the bill is all about.

The second technique of revolution proceeds by changing America’s demographic character. Aristotle points out that one cause of revolution is excessive “heterogeneity of stock,” meaning, excessive ethnic diversity. As a result of permissive immigration laws, a country may include ethnic groups whose character and customs clash with the way of life of the native majority: witness Eurabia. Immigration laws may also increase the electoral base of a party committed to redistribution of wealth. Eventually, the immigrant population may equal or exceed the original native population. The democratic principle of one adult, one vote can thus lead to regime change, and without violence.

This is happening in America. The title of Samuel Huntington’s recent book, Who Are We? suggests that America is losing its cultural identity. This is nothing less than a revolution. To understand this cultural revolution, a brief description of America’s early culture is necessary.

The ethnic groups that founded America were among the most highly educated citizens of Great Britain and Europe. A dozen universities flourished before the end of eighteenth century, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia. Nineteenth-century British Prime Minister William Gladstone said that America’s Founding Fathers constituted the greatest collection of statesmen in history.

Early Americans quoted not only the Bible, but also Shakespeare, Cicero, Locke, and other luminaries. I dare say that apart from the sciences, the intellectual discipline of eighteen-century American universities puts to shame what passes for higher education today. The Federalist Papers, which were newspaper articles, will be studied long after the books of countless present day political scientists are forgotten.

As is well known, America was based primarily on the Protestant ethic. Without denying serious flaws, this ethic exalted family values. It emphasized education, honest work, thrift, self-reliance, personal responsibility. This era is fading away. The bureaucratic state is intruding more and more into the family; universities are propagating moral relativism; and during the past few decades, millions of immigrants, poorly educated or of dubious character, have entered America. Unlike the immigrants of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a large percentage of these recent immigrants are not anxious to assimilate—an attitude encouraged by the cultural relativism that permeates the anti-American liberal-left.

Far be it for me to denigrate any people, but the enormous influx of Hispanics from Mexico, Latin America, and South America is transforming America into a bi-national state. The Obama administration will hasten this cultural revolution for partisan and anti-American reasons. To illustrate, I shall draw on data from Mark Levin’s recent book, Liberty and Tyranny.

Levin notes that the immigration law of 1965 abolished the decades-old policy of national quotas that favored immigration from Europe. The 1965 law precipitated a significant increase in immigration from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. In 2007, the immigration population reached a record of almost 38 million. One in three was an illegal alien. Half of Mexican and Central American immigrants, and one-third of South American immigrants, are illegal.

Almost 10 percent of Mexico’s population is living in the United States. Many American-born Hispanics, especially Mexicans, do not identify with America or American culture but rather with the culture of their homeland.

By 2050, Hispanics may be a third of the nation’s population. Hispanic women have the highest unmarried birthrate in the country—over three times that of whites and Asians, and nearly one-and-a-half times that of black women.

Such is the “fertility surge” of Hispanics that by 2050, the Hispanic school-age population will make up the majority of public school students.

One survey found that more than 55 million individuals in the U.S. speak a language other than English at home. More than 34 million speak Spanish at home, and of these more than 16 million speak English poorly.

Hispanics are almost three times more likely to receive welfare than non-Hispanic whites. The Department of Justice reported that in 2001, approximately half of all gang members were Hispanic/Latino. One gang in Los Angeles reportedly has branches in 31 states, and with links to Mexico and Latin America. Levin points out that Mexico exports to the US the foot soldiers of potential revolutionaries to preserve Mexico’s own culture of corruption and privilege.

Mexico’s government is promoting the notion that much of the American southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico. A Zogby poll indicates that 58 percent of the Mexicans agree.

Levin concludes: “So distant is America from its founding principles that it’s difficult to precisely describe the nature of American government.” Superimposed on America’s great Constitution is a maze of administrative agencies unknown and unaccountable to the people and detached from their beliefs and values. If their beliefs and values lack the clarity and vigor of Americans of yesteryear, their colleges and universities are largely to blame.

To salvage America, either the Republican Party must be rejuvenated, or a new Constitutional Party must be developed to terminate Obama’s anti-American revolution. Since this revolution is advancing by institutional and cultural means, corresponding counter-measures are necessary. First, immigration laws must be drastically revised and vigorously enforced to restore America’s cultural integrity. This will require curtailment of the multiculturalism and policy-making tendency of the Supreme Court. Second, non-governmental organizations, including churches, should establish educational programs that teach young and old the wisdom of America’s Founding Fathers articulated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and Washington’s “Farewell Address.”

Of course much more must be said and done, but this must suffice for today’s Report, except to recommend Mark Levin’s book Liberty and Tyranny and my own forthcoming book Toward a Renaissance of Israel and America.

By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

From the edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, August 17, 2009.

Liberal religious groups announced on Monday they are teaming up with President Barack Obama in a national campaign to counter the surprisingly vehement conservative opposition to his plan for overhaul of the U.S. healthcare industry this year. Organized by liberal-leaning evangelicals, some mainline Protestant clergy, and some Catholic groups, it will include Obama participating in a call-in program with religious leaders streamed on the Internet on August 19, prayer meetings and nationwide television ads.”

From “U.S. religious left wades into healthcare fight,” which appeared yesterday in Reuters.

When a reporter and/or media outlet is behind you, your vocal support for something or another is “passionate,” “caring,” even “prophetic.” When they don’t, that same intensity is “vehement,” “fueled by anger,” even (to quote Democratic congressional leaders) “unAmerican.”
Some of the same religious leadership that helped Obama navigate the political shoals last year are putting the band back together again, this time in an attempt to blunt massive grassroots resistance to health care “reform.” Let me talk about a few of the particulars.

If you believe a lot of the “mainstream” press, resistance is either synthetic, bought and paid for by those “opposed to health care reform,” ill-informed, and/or stoked in part (as Reuters put it yesterday) by “Christian and conservative radio,” and/or leaders of the “religious right.”

As you undoubtedly know from watching television or reading accounts, President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress are fighting back.

The two-fold strategy appears to be (yet AGAIN) to marginalized anyone who wants an explanation of how they are going to square various circles, and to (yet AGAIN) stop talking about specifics (which always gets them into loads of trouble) and return to the kind of sparkling generalities that Obama specializes in.

That’s where the Religious Left comes in the form of something called “People of Faith for Health Reform and its “40 Days for Health Reform.” One of the usual suspects is Jim Wallis, who told Reuters that “his group’s mission is to keep universal health-care coverage alive as a ‘moral issue.'”

According to NPR, the division of labor goes like this. The Obama Administration has rolled out a website to contest “wild rumors” about its health care initiative and to “call out misinformation.” (Gulp!) So what is the role of this “coalition of progressive religious leaders”?
“Argue morality,” or, according to Liz Halloran, “more specifically, what members characterize as the moral and religious imperative of providing ‘inclusive, accessible’ health care coverage and the need for a civil discourse about the issue, says Jim Wallis of the progressive Christian group Sojourners, one of the coalition sponsors.” (Keep that “civil discourse” comment in mind.)

So, let’s look at the ad. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaBq0QeM3-8) True, there is one statement that is unobjectionable. A pastor looks in the camera and says, “God’s given us a spirit not of fear but of love and action.” But the rest of the ad is the usual us v. the “special interests” drivel that is the hallmark of those who insist you either accept the thrust of the Democrats health care “reform” sight unseen, or you want nothing.

The first statement in the 30-second ad tells you all you need to know: “Special interests in Washington are spending millions to block health insurance reform,” followed by “Killing reform will boost their profits.” In case anyone misses the point a moment later a woman opines, “The special interests are strong.”

However, thanks to NPR, there can be little doubt of the campaign’s real motivation. “According to Gordon Whitman of the PICO National Network, a faith-based community organizing group that is also one of the coalition’s sponsors, the group’s effort will focus on moderate, swing districts where ‘religion is significant to public life.'”

They really do believe we are idiots, don’t they?

Switching gears but to a related subject, there’s been an enormous amount written about “Section 1233 of the health-care bill drafted in the Democratic-led House, which would pay doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling every five years,” as the Washington Post described it. How much should we be worrying about this?

Let me offer the concluding paragraphs of “Facing the Challenge of Health Care Rationing,” a page one story in the July/August issue of NRL News, written by NRLC’s Burke Balch, JD. Mr. Balch, director of NRLC’s Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics wrote the following.

The House legislation, as reported from the Energy and Commerce Committee, contains provisions to promote advance directives like “living wills,” including:

1) Medicare reimbursement for consultations about “advance care planning” between health care providers and their patients when they enter Medicare, every five years thereafter, and if they become seriously ill;

2) requiring private and public health care plans to give potential enrollees the option to establish advance directives; and

3) a public education campaign, toll-free telephone hotline, and clearinghouse to promote advance directives and other advance care planning.

Advocates of such measures frequently cite the cost savings if, as they expect, this promotion results in more directives rejecting lifesaving treatment. “We refer to the end-of-life discussion as the multimillion-dollar conversation because it is associated with shifting costs away from expensive … care like being on a ventilator in an ICU, to less costly comfort care …,” said Holly Prigerson of Boston’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. National Right to Life strongly encourages the execution of a pro-life advance directive, the Will to Live (see http://www.nrlc.org/MedEthics/WilltoLiveProject.html). However, the pro-life fear is that efforts to push patients and prospective patients to prepare advance directives may in practice become a means of persuading or pressuring them to agree to less treatment as a means of saving money. Moreover, governmental promotion of advance care planning must not include the “option” of assisted suicide. Especially in the Senate, NRLC is working to address these concerns through negotiations and, if necessary, by preparing amendments to be offered in the Senate Finance Committee and on the Senate floor.

It is critically important that pro-life citizens make their voices heard while senators and representatives are at home during August, and after they return to Washington in September. The contemplated restructuring of America’s health care system will affect the life–and death–of every American.

So here’s the scoop: The above critique of the Democrats’ health care agenda is that they want to save us all a lot of money by reducing our health care coverage, eliminating as many worthless people on Medicaid so that they can reduce the amount of money made by private health care insurers to increase the pay of cooperating physicians in their scheme.

I almost forgot an implied one: they will kill two or more birds with one stone–they will save us all money by making us wait for health care by putting us on long waiting lists to reduce our health care. The add bonus is costs will be further reduced because while some of us while waiting for health care will die. And, the double bonus will be that those of us who don’t die will develop the moral virtues of patience and endurance or long suffering.

By accomplishing all of that, they will be able to further justify giving themselves more raises in the future and maybe even helping pay for the billions in give-a-way money for keeping poorly managed financial companies and auto companies as well as foreign investors making more profits at all of our expense.

Yes, the logic of the Left is if you abort all of the worthless babies, worthless welfare poor, and worthless elderly folk–of course, according to their own preplanned consent–everyone can have a better, more profitable, and a good secular life. In the process, they may be able to save some of their prized socialist programs like social security and medicaid from going bankrupt.

What a wonderful utopia we will all live in now that the Left rules our world. We are commanded to now go and spend to support the cause for tomorrow we will surely die; they are planning on it. Oh, what joy it is to live in a planned society.

Source: National Right to Life, August 11, 2009 except for the scoopish commentary.

The left-wing organization Gush Shalom has launched an effort in the US to challenge the tax exempt status of non-profit groups which support Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria. Gush Shalom has stated that it will soon target Nefesh B’Nefesh, Christian Zionist philanthropies, the Jewish National Fund and the World Zionist Organization in its new campaign. “This is incredibly outrageous,” responded David Halevy, the head of Shuva Israel, an organization singled out in the recent Gush Shalom report. “They have the gall to do this after receiving so many millions of dollars from foreign governments supporting left-wing organizations that influence activity in Israel,” he told The Jerusalem Post. Halevy noted that the money his group receives is used to subsidize schools, libraries, youth activity, women empowerment training and other benevolent projects in the settlements.

Parents spanking their own children for breaking the rules and for other harmful behaviors may soon become illegal. According to the Parental Rights organization, [t]he United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which was adopted by the UN in 1989. Since then, only two members nations, the United States and Somalia, have yet to ratify the treaty. This treaty is interpreted to mean parents’ corrective spanking of their children for bad behavior is a form of torture and abuse that must end. The result is that the Committee on the Rights of the Child – a panel of 18 UN “experts” gathered in Geneva, Switzerland – decided on their own that they should tell the entire world how to raise their kids. The CRC’s prohibition of spanking in the home will become the Supreme Law of the Land if Americans allow the U.S. Senate to ratify it. If ratified, spanking will be considered a criminal act. Every parent, who still practices the biblical injunction ‘to spare the rod spoils the child,” will become a criminal. Good parents will lose the freedom to raise their children as they deem best and they will loose their children. (Go to Parental Rights website to learn more.)

It is true other forms of punishment can be effective in correcting children’s bad behavior. Taking away the freedom to play, eat favorite foods, watch favorite programs, communicating with friends, using the car, and the like can be effective in enforcing the rules and moral laws.
Those methods do not always work. And, the younger the child is the less likely they will be.

Spanking, in fact, produces more long-term benefits to both the child and society. Spanking is a form of punishment usually intended to teach children that bad behavior has painful consequences. People whose behavior lands them in prison know the meaning of painful consequences. Living in a society condoning bad behavior also results in painful consequences of at least two types. One is the result from doing wrongful behaviors. Bodily injuries, disease, guilt or shame, rejection or alienation, and the like are consequences of doing wrong in a permissive culture. Another is the reciprocation of others, which compounds the consequences. A recent example of this is the murder of the late term abortion practitioner George Tiller. The ultimate consequence of moral crimes (sin, unethical behavior, etc.), however, is death. Death is the separation of individuals from a mutually beneficial working relationship. A long healthy marriage exemplifies such relationships. Divorce is a form of death. Abortion often results in the death of unborn child and parent. Ultimately, as prison is hell on earth so is life after death for those whose moral crimes end in the eternal punishment biblical religion calls hell. Many a revived clinically dead patient have told practicing doctors about going beyond barred gates into a place the Bible calls hell.

I have heard men honor their fathers for what seemed at the time very cruel punishment. The benefits of those harsh spankings produced the fruit of self-discipline hat made it possible for them to achieve their goals and enjoy their lives. This simply means that the Biblical injunction is true: Withholding painful punishment for wrongs done spoils the child so he or she may never enjoy the benefits of a moral and productive life. It also supports the widely known problem with leaders of the UN and their legal conventions–moral corruption. Evil doing brats often grow up to be evil doing adults.

That is another reason why America does not need the secular left’s God and Christianity hating wisdom. Nor does America need them dictating to us about how to raise children, how to live, how to practice religion, or how to make and spend our money. As a matter of fact, America would be much better off without them attempting to spend all of our hard earned income on their global imperial agendas like universal health care, education, or economic development. They have ruined enough of the American culture and economy; we do not need them to destroy the family too.

Source: Xenia Citizen Journal.

search

Admin Controls

Here’s A Thought!

If companies (e.g., banks) are big enough, and the country is rich enough, corporate managers and investors can use the government as the ultimate insurance policy to bail them out if speculative risks go wrong. -- Robert Isaak (2005)